Author
Topic: Russia, Russia, Russia (Read 545390 times)

What Zeug is saying may be right. What we should do here in the US is to show all the results of the investigation BEFORE we actually do the investigation. We should SHOW the proof BEFORE we do the investigation.

I don't understand why I didn't see that myself. That makes perfect sense. I feel so embarrassed that I missed something that is so obvious.

Testimony from the Senate Intel Committee in the snip below. Bios of the individual below. Of course since this is not on Jimmy Dore or zerohedge the we know that some will reject this or simply call them bitter Corporate Democrats.

Ambassador Nicholas BurnsRoy and Barbara Goodman Family Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International RelationsHarvard Kennedy School of Government

Extract: "A funny thing happened last night: the United States Treasury Department gave in. For months it had been trying to fend off the Senate Intelligence Committee’s attempts at getting its hands on the records pertaining to a 2015 money laundering bust of Donald Trump’s Taj Mahal casino. But now the Treasury has finally caved, giving up the documents that will lead to Donald Trump’s demise, both as a president and as a free man."

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

Trump's Senate GOP allies are demanding that the FBI's closely guarded details of their investigate of the Trump campaign in the 2016 election. This indicates that the GOP appears to be doing everything that they can to disrupt the FBI's investigation:

Extract: "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and panel member Lindsey Graham are asking the FBI to turn over some closely guarded secrets: its applications for warrants to spy on people suspected of helping Russia meddle in last year’s presidential election."

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

National Security Agency (NSA) Director Mike Rogers is frustrated that he has not yet convinced President Trump that U.S. intelligence indicates Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, CNN reported Wednesday.

Rogers vented frustration over his fruitless efforts to lawmakers during a recent closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, a congressional source familiar with the meeting told the news network.

Is it Ego that stops Trump from believing he is an unknowing Russian puppet? Is it I possible for him to accept that many of his advisors were speaking Putin's will and he was so incredibly dumb that he didn't know it? Does he has a Plan B that don't involve manaforte and Flynn weasel advise?

Or has he known all along and is now lying in an attempt to cover up his many dark dealings? If he can convince enough people that nothing happened, the american justice system is useless. He can pardon himself.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Extract: "It turns out the FBI is investigating the Donald Trump team for more than just election collusion with the Russians. The FBI has been investigating a catfishing scheme which Trump’s political allies were using to target Republican operatives who were on Trump’s bad side during the election. This investigation is now being publicly confirmed by one of the targets of the scheme."

Logged

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.” ― Leon C. Megginson

This seems to be the common right wing take these days, doesn't it? You know: there's an ongoing deep and expanding investigation looking into whether the current administration colluded with a foreign enemy to subvert our democratic process and just how much Trump and his team have worked to obstruct that investigation, but public hearings aren't being broadcast every afternoon so therefore the investigation is "dying".

They only wish.

Mueller is amassing a formidable team. Not with the intent of "punishing" Trump, but with the intent of getting at the truth. And I think those who care about both America and that truth are willing to give Mueller the time and resources he needs to sort out what's what. We simply cannot allow TPTB to walk up to the edge of treason just to gain power. Period.

Remember when Nixon told America that we deserve to know if our President is a crook? We still deserve that.

If you keep pushing this you will end up with the public seeing Trump as the victim, and awarding him a second term. - that is what history shows.

Is it possible that there are enough stupid people around to vote again for that arrogant imbecile because they feel sorry for him? Maybe; stranger things have happened. But the way I look at it is this: if this nation is dumb enough to allow hostile foreign entities to call the shots, then we deserve Trump. IOW, the battle and the race is already lost.

magnamentis

If you keep pushing this you will end up with the public seeing Trump as the victim, and awarding him a second term. - that is what history shows.

Is it possible that there are enough stupid people around to vote again for that arrogant imbecile because they feel sorry for him? Maybe; stranger things have happened. But the way I look at it is this: if this nation is dumb enough to allow hostile foreign entities to call the shots, then we deserve Trump. IOW, the battle and the race is already lost.

unfortunately that's how it is, i as a foreigner would not dare to say that too often but yes, people get the governments they deserve and what you say i said the first time after the re-election of GWB for his second term, despite all the lies and knowing who (dicky and his halliburton etc. group) was pulling the strings really.

This seems to be the common right wing take these days, doesn't it? You know: there's an ongoing deep and expanding investigation looking into whether the current administration colluded with a foreign enemy to subvert our democratic process and just how much Trump and his team have worked to obstruct that investigation, but public hearings aren't being broadcast every afternoon so therefore the investigation is "dying".

It's only natural that this is what happens to perception, when the mainstream media have been talking so much about something (because it sent their ratings through the roof). If they then suddenly decide to tone it down a bit, it will look as a retreat.

Like that CNN producer says in that sting operation by that horrible ACORN liar guy (who now has some of his credibility back): If there really was incontrovertible evidence, it would have been leaked a long time ago. They allegedly knew this was happening while it was going on, the US is a surveillance state that not even Orwell could have imagined, but they still can't present anything beyond hearsay from anonymous sources?

Okay, we'll wait. But can the mainstream media then stop screaming about it? And talk about issues for a change instead of doing the corporate bidding?

So, there's the perception, that in my limited view doesn't seem to be going very well. And then there's the reality, from which I still hope that there's something there (not just mere corruption that almost every US president/politican is guilty of) and it doesn't massively backfire.

Is it possible that there are enough stupid people around to vote again for that arrogant imbecile because they feel sorry for him? Maybe; stranger things have happened.

Not because they feel sorry for him. It will reinforce the erroneous idea that Trump is not part of the Establishment, and when he tried to drain the swamp, the Establishment did everything they could to get rid of him. And that's why he didn't drain the swamp, right?

Of course, it's the opposite of the truth, but a lot of people will perceive it that way, and if the Democrats then run again with some fake candidate who is up to his ears in corporate asses, yes, Trump might win again. They'll do another F You-finger.

Quote

But the way I look at it is this: if this nation is dumb enough to allow hostile foreign entities to call the shots, then we deserve Trump. IOW, the battle and the race is already lost.

Look, if things went so far as Russian agents meddling with voting machines (which is something that has been implied from the get-go), the problem is with the voting machines. I mean, I remember watching documentaries 10 years ago about Republicans tampering with Diebold voting machines. But it's okay when Americans do it to Americans, right?

Okay, let's assume that it's true that these Russian agents did hack the DNC servers. If there hadn't been as damning a content as there was on those servers, it would never have had the impact it had!

If it's not the voting machines or the hacking, and you believe that some twitterbots can influence the US elections up to that level, then yes, all hope is lost. In that sense I'd be more worried about Mercer and his companies using the CIA playbook of targeting voters, but then again, he's American.

Or are you bothered by Oligarchs Sans Frontières cooperating to steal more money from the world's people? That's a feature, not a bug. I don't care if it happens because Russia, Saudi Arabia or Israel is having an influence on US politics. None of them should have an influence, period.

It's not us against the Russians. It's us against the oligarchs and their limitless wealth that sucks the life out of us like a black hole.

Remember......pressure causes mistakes. The more pressure that is applied...the more mistakes you should expect. Donnie made a mistake by going after Mika of "Morning Joe" today. NOT a good look politically for several reasons. And it gave them an opening to mock Trump's fake Time Magazine cover.

Mocking is now stepped one more level. And I expect the White House press Corps to ratchet up their accountability of Donnie and his group in coming days/weeks.

Martin Gisser

Right. And so, they could hire Russian hackers as well. Just a theory. And then Putin and his oligarchs weren't far, esp. given Trump's shady financial dealings with them...

Quote

, let's assume that it's true that these Russian agents did hack the DNC servers. If there hadn't been as damning a content as there was on those servers, it would never have had the impact it had!

I'm still waiting for the first seriously damning piece.

The exact impact is perhaps impossible to quantify. From my Facebook field study I have the impression that it was already overwhelmed by other Fake News. The emails might have had the biggest effect in making hardcore Berners more susceptible to Fake News (stab-in-the-back legend). Like we can still occasionally see in the debate here: Trump's "Crooked Hillary" does stick.

The whole thing reminds me too much of the 2009 "Climategate" email hack. A red flag for my BS detector.

The whole thing reminds me too much of the 2009 "Climategate" email hack. A red flag for my BS detector.

There are a couple of differences. First of all, quite a large part of the mainstream media ran with the misleading quotes without context (it's a travesty, trick, etc). Second, the scientists defended themselves vehemently. Third, several inquiries exonerated the writers of the e-mails of any wrongdoing, especially when it comes to the science. And of course, the Democratic Party cannot defend itself with science, because politics simply isn't very scientific. It's about power, and power corrupts most of the time.

If you want to further look into this with me, we can discuss it in the Corporate Democrats thread. I must admit that I'm basing myself on what I've seen on Youtube. Maybe it wasn't as bad as it looked.

What I dislike most about this story, is that that ACORN fake news asshole scores with it. We should've never heard from that POS ever again.

I hope that Trump gets hit hard with anything that is true about the 'collusion', but I hope even more that his downfall will be caused by his own stupidity and the right people will be there to capitalize on it (not the GOP or the Corporate Democrats), with ideas and a vision that benefit the 99%.

Like Buddy says: Tick tock. Time is running out to get those right people in the right positions. But there still is time. We, all of us, need to support people that aren't beholden to corporate interests. That's not purity, it's common sense.

Most of all, I hope that we don't get a new Cold War. Paranoia levels are high enough for it, with the Russians now suspecting that American intelligence agencies will try to spoil their elections as well. Whether that's true or not, if will probably be used by the wrong people to gain (even more) power. Rinse and repeat.

And it's not just the intelligence agencies using this playbook. Some oligarchs, like Mercer and Thiel (and of course the Kochs) are now able to set up their own propaganda operations. I would probably too if my wealth was limitless and perpetually hungry for more growth.

And so that's what the problem is. Not the US, not Russia, not the KGB, CIA or NSA. The problem is the limitless wealth of oligarchs. We need to put a limit on that wealth. Somehow.

He's the guy who broke Iran Contra back in the 80's when Poppy Bush was caught red handed running a global CIA guns and drugs business. HW is definitely one of my favourite US presidents, a CIA Director with a de facto 3 term presidency. He and Baker did a lot of business with the Yeltsin oligarchs via the Carlyle Group before Putin decapitated the Russian oligarchy.

Anyhow, Parry is no Fox News Trumpist, I like him because he seems to be driven by journalistic ethics and uncovering the truth of the matter at hand.

What I dislike most about this story, is that that ACORN fake news asshole scores with it. We should've never heard from that POS ever again.

+1

however, as onerous as their history is, this is a real scoop and shows how the corporate media works to the detriment of the U.S. for $$$. It also indicates that much of the Russia stuff is simply a diversion tactic and further limiting the actual resistance to the destructive trump agenda (reference the discussion about the CNN CEO guiding the network back to Russia and away from the exit from Paris Agreement. There couldn't be a more clear example of institutional failure of the media to protect the public good.

Those of you that are interested in RussiaGate....need to follow Malcolm Nance. He's a former Navy intelligence officer....and he has been "spot on" with Donnie and the Russians since the summer BEFORE the election. Nance is a MSNBC contributor.

Mueller's investigation still has a long way to go....and there is no telling exactly when they will break. But break.....they will.

What I dislike most about this story, is that that ACORN fake news asshole scores with it. We should've never heard from that POS ever again.

+1

however, as onerous as their history is, this is a real scoop and shows how the corporate media works to the detriment of the U.S. for $$$. It also indicates that much of the Russia stuff is simply a diversion tactic and further limiting the actual resistance to the destructive trump agenda (reference the discussion about the CNN CEO guiding the network back to Russia and away from the exit from Paris Agreement. There couldn't be a more clear example of institutional failure of the media to protect the public good.

Some of us here understand this for what it is: an attack on and violation of American sovereignty and national governance. It is the virtual equivalent of Pearl Harbor, without bullets and bombs and deaths (except for the dozen or so Russian diplomats and officials connected to Putin that have been murdered or died in "accidents" over the past year). Some of understand this, some of us do not. Not everyone has the same level of concern about it, and that's just how people are.

The media and general public can walk and chew gum at the same time. The general public has been focused on Trump's agenda from day one, protesting and disrupting everything from the Muslim ban to the healthcare bill and everything in between. Media reporting led to the revelations regarding the actions of Michael Flynn, and it has since been discovered that he was working as a foreign agent for Turkey and advocating for policy in direct conflict with US interests and in favor of US adversaries. These actions by media also led to AG Sessions needing to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Media interviews have recorded Trump admitting to what amounts to obstruction of justice in his actions with the FBI director. Media reporting has uncovered examples of Trump's business corruption and dysfunction in the White House that have hobbled his ability to carry forward his agenda.

The Russia story is deep and wide, and the investigations will continue, as will media reporting. CNN is one cable news channel. The NYT and WaPo have been leading the way with breaking reports.

Your comments about CNN and Russia being a diversion make you appear to parrot the Fox News and conservative media positions. You are clearly in the corner of Fox News, and acting as an apologist for Donald Trump regarding Russia.

Some of here refuse to lower ourselves to that level, and will carry on.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) on Thursday conceded there is reason to continue the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 and possible collusion with Donald Trump’s campaign, arguing the probe “has legs".---The Justice Department and several Congressional committees are currently looking into Russia’s historical interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as well as what, if any, coordination the adversarial nation had with the Trump campaign.

Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was name-dropped by a GOP operative who launched an “independent campaign” to find Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 missing e-mails. That operative believed those emails had been hacked—most likely by a Russian or Russia-backed group.

Despite once explicitly asking for Russia to find Clinton’s 30,000 missing emails, Trump has repeatedly denied anything to do with Russia’s attempts to influence the election.

In addition to determining whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller is reportedly investigating the president for possible obstruction of justice over his firing of James Comey. Trump has denied that he demanded loyalty from the ousted FBI director, but also argued it wouldn’t be illegal if he had.

Your comments about CNN and Russia being a diversion make you appear to parrot the Fox News and conservative media positions. You are clearly in the corner of Fox News, and acting as an apologist for Donald Trump regarding Russia.

thats hilarious. So you obviously didn't watch the video and have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

the fact is that for anyone in the U.S. to get their panties in a bunch about USSR 'interfering' in the election is in complete denial of the U.S. operations all over the globe. How many elections have we worked to control in the world for our own domestic corporate interests? Why did Obama try to negotiate away our domestic sovereignty through the TPP? Why are we at war in Syria (hint: it involves a natural gas pipeline to Europe). . .

I haven't ever blocked anyone on this forum but this level of sheer idiocy really galls me, time to get back to the main threads. sorry I stopped by.

What I dislike most about this story, is that that ACORN fake news asshole scores with it. We should've never heard from that POS ever again.

+1

however, as onerous as their history is, this is a real scoop and shows how the corporate media works to the detriment of the U.S. for $$$. It also indicates that much of the Russia stuff is simply a diversion tactic and further limiting the actual resistance to the destructive trump agenda (reference the discussion about the CNN CEO guiding the network back to Russia and away from the exit from Paris Agreement. There couldn't be a more clear example of institutional failure of the media to protect the public good.

Some of here refuse to lower ourselves to that level, and will carry on.

I for one believe you take your disagreement too far, so don't "lower yourself" to that level. You can disagree with Jai Mitchell, et al, but don't be insulting about it.

I for one believe you take your disagreement too far, so don't "lower yourself" to that level. You can disagree with Jai Mitchell, et al, but don't be insulting about it.

BudM

Ramen !!

Let's not forget who's living room this discussion is taking place in.

I don't mean that Neven's thoughts or idea's on this or any other topic should be given precedence, rather that the collegial tone that prevails at all of Neven's sights is one of the reasons that so many of us have kept coming back for so many years.

I Just wanted to say that the whole "don't talk about Russia because it is a distraction" meme really hurt your arguments. That's like saying "don't talk about the melting Arctic because is a distraction from the climate change debate". Sure, it is effective if what you want is to cover up any wrong doing, but in a civilized debate it is just demeaning.

We know Russia meddled with the elections. We know Trump obstructed (and is obstructing) the investigation. We know several Trump campaign staff colluded with Russia. Whether Trump himself colluded will be extremely difficult to prove. Like all strongmen, Trump works by using the people around him, not by doing things himself. Will the FBI be able to gather enough evidence to process it in a court of law? That will be difficult, specially with the trail of dead bodies and with the GOP interference in the investigation.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

No, we don't.We know that NSA says so, without providing any proof at all. They claim that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks. This is just a laughable allegation. More probably this is a false trail, by hackers using standard techniques of leaving such false trails.Further, we know that CIA has developed virus software with sophisticated means leaving false trails pointing directly to Russia. E.g. the 'Grasshopper' virus, where CIA was re-using Russian hacker code, creating "Russian" hackers' signatures, as revealed by wikileaks. These viruses are available on the dark web, for anyone wanting to do "Russian" hacks.

It's likely the various hacks were done by Russian speaking hackers. But we ceertainly don't know their nationality, and we most certainly don't know who assigned them. Could be interested parties from the USA, e.g., who would have a clearer motive to influence the elections than the GRU.

I Just wanted to say that the whole "don't talk about Russia because it is a distraction" meme really hurt your arguments.

If there is a meme, it would be 'don't talk about Russia non-stop to boost your ratings or to hide your failings as a party'. Don't present us with a false choice between 'don't talk at all' and 'talk non-stop'. Strategically, it would be more useful to wait until the evidence (finally) comes in and in the meantime attack Trump and his cronies on policy issues. It would be much smarter to talk about that non-stop, if only because Trump prefers people to talk about Russia non-stop.

Quote

We know Russia meddled with the elections. We know Trump obstructed (and is obstructing) the investigation. We know several Trump campaign staff colluded with Russia. Whether Trump himself colluded will be extremely difficult to prove.

All of that is possible, but none of what you say, is fact, even though the media tries to present it as such. As for the collusion, to me it looks like regular corruption between oligarchs, just like previous presidents had with Saudi-Arabia and Israel. Again, a feature, not a bug.

Please, do not dismiss that Paul Jay interview out of hand, just because I posted that video. He really does say a lot of sensible things. I try not to post videos here to annoy people.

It is a fact that Russia meddled in the elections. So say all the intelligence agencies and multiple depositions in congress. It is such a strong fact that congress approved another sanctions package to punish Russia for it's meddling. If that is not evidence I ask you, What evidence is needed for you to believe it?

It is also a fact that Trump is obstructing the investigation. He fired the freaking head of the FBI and then admited he was attempting to influence his testimony.

Did Trump colluded with Putin, or was it just his henchmen? That is the only thing that is still up for grabs.

BTW

Quote

Strategically, it would be more useful to wait until the evidence (finally) comes in

Strategically if it is true that Trump colluded chances are he will make sure the evidence never comes up, specially if people give them the benefit of the doubt. Can you tell me why are you giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on this?

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

I have trusted no western news media or intelligence agency for a very long time, and I am mildly surprised that anyone yet believes them. Especially after the intelligence agencies were extensively exposed as liars and torturers and the press as shameless cheerleaders for atrocity and war.

I have trusted no western news media or intelligence agency for a very long time, and I am mildly surprised that anyone yet believes them. Especially after the intelligence agencies were extensively exposed as liars and torturers and the press as shameless cheerleaders for atrocity and war.

sidd

Oh, for a Government that was moderately honest and moderately competent.

Logged

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!""And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

I will ask from the Russiagate deniers (tm) to please answer the following questions

What will you consider proof?

If neither American nor British intelligence services can be trusted, who must deliver the proof you requiere?

What is your standard for a president interfering with an investigation?

I don't trust the intelligence services like I trust let's say NASA. I know the intelligence services lie and deceive when they deem it necesary, but I also know that at the end of the day, they are a bureaucracy, with people looking over people looking over people. If they are investigating the President of the United States (literally their boss), with a majority on the house , Senate and Supreme court and a known criminal, they have good reasons. I don't think they are lying about this.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Martin Gisser

Dunno how much this poor CNN guy is involved in Russiagate reporting. There is enough leakers. But they can mostly leak from the surface, like the paradigmatic Reality L. Winner and her stuff.

The "hard evidence" will perhaps never surface. The core CIA etc. staff and organisation are seriously serious people. (For a taste read Joanna Macy's memoirs.) Have you ever seen original spy tapes from inside the Kremlin. Maybe the Estonians will get impatient one day and dump stuff (just a theory, or Australia) ...Louise Mensch has posted her summa of whispers from the spies and is now offline:https://patribotics.blog/2017/06/29/exclusive-sigint-on-kushnerivanka-inside-russian-embassy/Her stuff shows the nature of the hard evidence, if existing.

Some important guy twitters

Quote

To the career men & women at DOJ/FBI: your actions and integrity will be unfairly questioned. Be prepared, be strong. Duty. Honor. Country.

We still believe that Trump has renewed his feud with the Morning Joe co-hosts in such absurdly vulgar fashion because he expects a Trump-Russia collusion bombshell to be published imminently and he’s attempting to create a distraction. But in addition to the heat he’s taking for the sheer boorishness of his latest personal attacks, he appears to have just publicly confessed to having committed felony blackmail, in a manner which has now also exposed Jared Kushner for having committed the same. Bring on yet another congressional investigation.

If neither American nor British intelligence services can be trusted, who must deliver the proof you requiere?

Hi Archimid,

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a factual proof based on evidence and a factoid based on hearsay, which is surprising since this arctic forum community is founded on a scientific approach to evidentiary proofs indicating the probable reality of ongoing anthropogenic climate change. It's the deniers who are reduced to misrepresentations and confusions about how science works and what constitutes a proof, its evidence and its probable factual truths.

17 intelligence agencies asserting Russian interference in the US election process, without evidence, does not constitute a proof of Russian interference. It is a factoid rather than a proven fact.

Likewise your notion of 'obstruction' would appear to be colloquial rather than legalistic, where you think that Trump has tried to 'get in the way' of Comey's investigation. This is not 'obstruction' in the sense the media and political polemicists intend, and there would appear to be as yet no evidence of 'obstruction of justice' which would be the legal basis under US jurisdiction for a possible movement to impeach.

There's no evidence of Russian interference.There's no evidence of Trump's obstruction.There's certainly no evidence of collusion.

None of these are as yet 'facts of the matters at hand'. Your naive insistence on them as factoids devoid of evidentiary proofs does nothing other than weaken your arguments and this, I think, works in favour of Trump's administration.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a factual proof based on evidence and a factoid based on hearsay, which is surprising since this arctic forum community is founded on a scientific approach to evidentiary proofs indicating the probable reality of ongoing anthropogenic climate change. It's the deniers who are reduced to misrepresentations and confusions about how science works and what constitutes a proof, its evidence and its probable factual truths.

When NASA says the Earth is warming I believe them. I'm sure they have no "hard proof". They only have sparse instruments all over the world and in space that return what to me and almost everyone else are meaningless numbers. Some folks in a building and NASA get together and turn all those meaningless numbers into a model that produces a number which they call the Global Temperature. To climate change deniers that does not constitute proof. They say the models are wrong or that scientists can't be trusted or whatever excuse is convenient to them at the moment. To me it does constitute evidence.

It is the same with Russiagate evidence. There are multiple reports from multiple sources gathered by maybe thousands of people in the intelligence agencies. In some room, in some government building analysts get together and piece together all the sparse reports and secret evidence into a coherent picture. That coherent picture was deemed good enough to publicly call out Russia, enact sanctions, sack the National Security Adviser and initiate an official investigation.

To me that is as hard evidence as can be found. Yet to you that is not evidence. So I ask you again, since you conveniently avoiding answering the question, to give an example of what constitutes evidence in this case. For example you could say that evidence would be a video recording of a Russian sitting on his computer hacking away some election server. The video should include the screen recording of everything the Russian did. It should also have a log of all outgoing traffic from the terminal, a trace of the steps that connect him to the election server, and verification from the server side that the action did have the effect wanted by the hacker. That would be iron clad proof. That would also be impossible to obtain. Even if it was obtained it would not be public.

But of course, since you do not trust the intelligence agencies, if they were to release such proof you would say it is fake. That level of proof must come from somewhere other than American or European intelligence agencies. What source would be acceptable to you? A confession by the hacker himself? Wikileaks? the Chinese? The KGB? What source would you trust in this matter?

The same for interference. I believe that asking for personal loyalty, firing the FBI director overseeing the investigation and then attempting to influence the testimony with intimidation is obstruction of justice. You obviously don't. Please tell me what is your standard for obstructing justice?

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

I’m writing this piece in the spirit of Benjamin Wittes’s account of his interactions with James Comey immediately following the New York Times story for which he acted as a source. The goal is to provide a fuller accounting of experiences which were thoroughly bizarre and which I did not fully understand until I read the Journal’s account of the episode yesterday. Indeed, I still do not fully understand the events I am going to describe, both what they reflected then or what they mean in retrospect. But I can lay out what happened, facts from which readers and investigators can draw their own conclusions.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

In the coming weeks and months....democracy in the US will continue to tested. There are many people at all levels who have already been bought off. From the highest reaches of government...to blogs.

Several months ago I posted a link to a psychology experiment done at Stanford several decades ago. You should review that again. It shows you what humanity is capable of...especially in a group.

Just from a casual observance of Donnie's motley crew...you can see that it is pretty easy to put together a sizeable group of folks that have no ethics. Mix in a little oversized ego...and access to authority....and you can see what you get.

The press is going to tested big time in coming months. And they will have to counter the fake press of FOX, Breitbart, and Russian backed bloggers.

This is going to get a lot more serious than most expect. Keep your eyes open...and keep asking people questions, for questions demand answers.

Archimid, your NASA analogy doesn't really work. First of all, NASA is about science, intelligence agencies are about power and politics. Second, the NASA data can be obtained and checked by everyone who has a high enough level of understanding and skills (+ the peer review system). Third, the mainstream media don't go screaming almost 24/7 that the world is about to end based on some snippets of NASA data (not even raw) they have received from anonymous third parties. Did you check that article about the 17 agencies-canard that everyone uncritically disseminated after Hillary Clinton used it for her 'campaign'?

And even then, we can discard all these arguments and posit that you employ an appeal to authority.

I don't need video evidence of a Russian hacker sitting behind a computer hacking voting machines. I would need a variety of people to check the paper trail (just like scientists checking NASA data) and establish a discrepancy. That would be enough evidence for me that someone tampered with the voting machines. Which has happened on a continuous basis in the past, BTW, and probably still is happening.

Your problem is with the hackable voting machines, not with the hackers. Or do you leave your door open at night with a neon sign above it, saying: 'Welcome, burglars!'

Quote

It is a fact that Russia meddled in the elections. So say all the intelligence agencies and multiple depositions in congress. It is such a strong fact that congress approved another sanctions package to punish Russia for it's meddling. If that is not evidence I ask you, What evidence is needed for you to believe it?

It is not a fact, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen either. It simply hasn't been proven. It's isn't all the intelligence agencies, and we know these agencies have agendas. Just like almost everything in Congress is done based on an (partisan) agenda. Those multiple depositions I have seen, were mostly opinions. What do I care about the opinion of the ambassador of Montenegro?

Quote

It is also a fact that Trump is obstructing the investigation. He fired the freaking head of the FBI and then admited he was attempting to influence his testimony.

You mean the head of the FBI that made Trump president by announcing the FBI was reopening the investigation into the Clinton mails just two weeks before the election? And Trump didn't admit no such thing. That was the breathless interpretation of mainstream media propagandists.

Quote

Did Trump colluded with Putin, or was it just his henchmen? That is the only thing that is still up for grabs.

That's irrelevant. We know Trump is corrupt, and that this is accepted practice from American presidents/politicians who almost always serve the interests of (some of the) oligarchs. The only reason it isn't accepted this time, is because people dislike Trump's personality so much, because the Democratic Party won't own up to its mistakes (ie betraying blue-collar workers and the disenfranchised) and because the mainstream media is on a ratings bonanza.

Quote

If neither American nor British intelligence services can be trusted, who must deliver the proof you requiere?

Investigative journalists with a proven track record, if they still exist. They are the ones who check power for us, the people. Not the intelligence agencies who serve various profit-seeking interests (including their own).

And that brings us to the biggest problem of all: Which media can we still trust?

And I'm not saying all of this because I want to protect or defend Trump. He's a corrupt, lying, narcissistic, megalomaniac asshole who needs to be replaced by the right people (not another pretty-faced Obama). The danger of Russiagate is that you make his position stronger when it backfires.

It would be better if we stop talking about Russiagate and Trump's personality so much, and attack him on how he is breaking his promises by introducing even more tax breaks for the rich, deregulates Wall Street, burdens the poor with even higher medical and education costs, f***s up the climate, etc, etc.

Russiagate can be the cherry on top once all those investigations are done, but the cake is usually bigger than the cherry. Let's bake a cake. That's how you get voters back and re-gain political power to undo what Trump, his cronies and the GOP have been doing (and what Corporate Democrats have been doing before them).

But allow me to apologize for letting myself get swept up in this again. I continue to receive notifications for this thread because I want to know how the investigations are progressing. When I see various people post all these conspiracy theories (which doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy, but one small step further and you're in Glennbeckistan), I get the impression that this is how a very large part of the population thinks and this depresses me somewhat, because I'd like to see all that fervour and energy directed towards systemic solutions, not just solving something that gets us in a frenzy.

Trump is a symptom of a broken system, not the cause. The cause is the limitless wealth of oligarchs. This wealth is like the Blob, and so it has to be reduced to a limit where it doesn't try to eat everything.

the fact is that for anyone in the U.S. to get their panties in a bunch about USSR 'interfering' in the election is in complete denial of the U.S. operations all over the globe.

For perhaps the dozenth time, allow me to explain: our problem isn't so much with Russia meddling in our elections. That's reprehensible, and we need to work against it, but that's not what all the investigations are about. No, our problem is Americans working with Russia to subvert our democratic processes for the mutual benefit of both parties. That's not just reprehensible; that's treason. And that simply can't be tolerated.

Extract: "Smith told other operatives that he was working on Russian election collusion with Trump adviser Michael Flynn, and he also listed Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway as being involved as well. Bannon and Conway have told the WSJ that they never worked with him, though Palmer Report was able to confirm that Smith worked with Conway’s husband (link). But more telling may be what Peter Smith was up to on Twitter, and with whom he was attempting to communicate."

I don't need video evidence of a Russian hacker sitting behind a computer hacking voting machines. I would need a variety of people to check the paper trail (just like scientists checking NASA data) and establish a discrepancy.

That is exactly what happens in the federal agencies. Analysts, agents, supervisors, lawyers and many other bureaucrats comb through the data and report it. Methods and proof are closely guarded for security reasons but the conclusion is public. In any other debate (except for climate change), the testimony of the collective works of the agencies is accepted as proof.

For example The NSA director says the Russians meddled in the elections:

The DNI director also said it happened:

The CIA director also said it happened:

(jump to 34:02)

Now you are saying all this people are lying in some elaborate deception that must necesarilly involved thousands of agents over many government agencies working independently and together. I don't believe that for a second.

So your litmus test, "I would need a variety of people to check the paper trail" is met, but to you the people checking the paper trail are lying.

You say

Quote

Investigative journalists with a proven track record, if they still exist.

So by your own admission, it is unlikely that a person with enough credibility exists for you to believe it. That could be interpreted as regardless of who say it, you won't believe it. I think you must examine your objectivity.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

For perhaps the dozenth time, allow me to explain: our problem isn't so much with Russia meddling in our elections. That's reprehensible, and we need to work against it, but that's not what all the investigations are about. No, our problem is Americans working with Russia to subvert our democratic processes for the mutual benefit of both parties. That's not just reprehensible; that's treason. And that simply can't be tolerated.

I agree. You have the Nixon/Watergate problem. The break in was bad, but could have been easily contained if admitted to. Foreign election interference has been going on since the invention of elections. The problems are: encouraging it, assisting it, then compounding it by lying about it then using your power to prevent discovery. Trump is doing all that plus using his base to then discredit those who are trying to get at the truth.We have a compounding problem in that we are in the instant era. Remember, there have been big problems in the past that took sometimes decades to overcome. Even Watergate took almost two years before Nixon fled the WH. In Trumps case, I could easily see him running for a second term unless the electorate gives a solid message in 2018 which I do not see coming.In fact I could see Russiagate being one of those things that historians will give the final verdict and not the judicial system.

Neven:

Quote

"I get the impression that this is how a very large part of the population thinks and this depresses me somewhat, because I'd like to see all that fervour and energy directed towards systemic solutions, not just solving something that gets us in a frenzy."

Quote

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried” – Winston Churchill

Logged

"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

That is exactly what happens in the federal agencies. Analysts, agents, supervisors, lawyers and many other bureaucrats comb through the data and report it. Methods and proof are closely guarded for security reasons but the conclusion is public. In any other debate (except for climate change), the testimony of the collective works of the agencies is accepted as proof.

If they checked the paper trail of voting machines and noted a discrepancy (meaning someone hacked it), why don't they present it? There's plenty of stuff leaking as it is, so this shouldn't be too hard. I don't believe that invisible proof should be accepted that uncritically, I'm sorry. If NASA would do that, one would have to admit that climate risk deniers have a point. I trust what NASA says because people I trust (bloggers, etc) have looked at the data and confirmed it, not just because NASA says it.

And NASA has a fantastic track record, when compared to lying, warmongering agencies like the CIA, NSA and FBI.

Quote

For example The NSA director says the Russians meddled in the elections:

The DNI director also said it happened:

The CIA director also said it happened:

(jump to 34:02)

Okay, so now we leave the 'Russians hacked voting machines and/or power plants' insinuation and we come to the alleged hacking of DNC servers. This is different from a paper trail that can be checked by journalists. In fact, I believe that not even your thousands of independent analysts, agents, supervisors, lawyers and many other bureaucrats have had a look at this 'paper trail' because the DNC simply refused to release its servers to be investigated by intelligence agencies. Instead they used some private company, who since then has issued all kinds of doubtful statements that have been proven to be wrong or unsubstantiated. The media ran with them nonetheless, as we can still see in this thread.

But leaving aside whether it was a hack or a leak, a hack by whom, etc, the content of what was released also counts for something, right? And it's the content that was so damaging to Clinton, with good reason. Why has this been glossed over so casually? Because the establishment controls the mainstream media.

But even then, Archimid, the NSA/CIA/FBI have so much surveilling power that they can look at your and my private mails, switch on our webcams, switch on our computers while they're off, track everything we do on the Internet, and so on (thanks in part to the wonderful Obama), and they said they knew the Russians were doing all those things while they were doing it, but a) they didn't stop them and b) that should make it super easy to prove. Maybe not prove hacks were conclusively done by Russian agencies, but at least prove the 'collusion' between Trump's cronies and the Russians. If only for the fact that it's constantly repeated how stupid and sloppy these people are. It should be super, super easy.

And with collusion I don't mean the standard corruption of transnational cooperation between centres of money and power. You know, Russian oil and all that stuff. No, I mean recordings or mails where they actually discuss how Putin can help Trump win the elections. That should be super easy for the NSA/CIA/FBI to produce.

Quote

So your litmus test, "I would need a variety of people to check the paper trail" is met, but to you the people checking the paper trail are lying.

If they're all from the intelligence industry, then no, we're not talking about a 'variety of people'. Traditionally it's journalism that blows the lid off conspiracies, not intelligence agencies. Remember Watergate?

[/quote]You say

Quote

Investigative journalists with a proven track record, if they still exist.

So by your own admission, it is unlikely that a person with enough credibility exists for you to believe it. That could be interpreted as regardless of who say it, you won't believe it. I think you must examine your objectivity.[/quote]

Not at all, I can come up with a few names. People at The Intercept, for instance, like Glenn Greenwald. Journalists at The Guardian, who are known for this kind of work (Panama Papers, etc). There are plenty of good, independent journalists in Europe, and probably still some left at the WP or NYT. I don't know all of them.

You're implying that I reason from this pre-conceived idea that Russia didn't meddle with the elections whatsoever. This simply isn't true. I'm sure that oligarchs literally know no boundaries and there's a very complex network of incredible wealth that tries to get bigger all the time. I'm not shocked at all by that. This is nothing new. It's how the system works, which is why we're in this mess (because the problem is not Trump, but the system).

The point is that I don't care about who is doing it, whether it's ugly Trump or beautiful Obama. As a matter of fact, if Obama or Hillary would've won elections through collusion with some foreign agency, I'm pretty sure nobody would care. This annoys me to no end.

And secondly, I fear that all this energy and attention going towards Russiagate could have very adverse effects, further cementing Trump into power, giving him full control over the GOP, and doing some really, really nasty stuff (worse than what he has done so far).

Neven, hacking voting machines, hacking private servers of Secretaries of State, manipulating media and botnets are all parts of coordinated attempts to influence the elections. From the reports, hacking voting machines was attempted but unsuccessful. Some methods had more success than others.

The point is not what method was used to swing the elections in favor of Trump, the point is that there were attempts at all. In different times this could have been an act of war. That is not to say that the US is not guilty of doing very similar things and worse in free elections all over the world, specially in South America. They We are guilty of that for sure.

But that is not the world we want. Elections in every country must be held freely so that hopefully the voices of the people are heard and the common good is served.

Even if the US is guilty of the crimes Russia committed, the practice must be stopped. Now is as good a time as any.

Quote

But leaving aside whether it was a hack or a leak, a hack by whom, etc, the content of what was released also counts for something, right? And it's the content that was so damaging to Clinton, with good reason. Why has this been glossed over so casually? Because the establishment controls the mainstream media.

She lost the election and if she wasn't one of the privileged she would have been in jail. Frankly, even now, even after this monster Trump is destroying so many people's lives and so many othervital structures, I'm still glad Hillary lost. In my book that was a close a thing as divine justice as we'll get. In my book, she deserved to lose for two reasons only. She voted for the Iraq war and the patriot act.

The rest of what she did is trivial.

Quote

The point is that I don't care about who is doing it, whether it's ugly Trump or beautiful Obama. As a matter of fact, if Obama or Hillary would've won elections through collusion with some foreign agency, I'm pretty sure nobody would care. This annoys me to no end.

Well to be fair Obama didn't try to destroy alliances forged over decades of intimate cooperation. Obama also didn't collude to destroy science, Obama also didn't publicly asks for the Russians to meddle with the elections.

Quote

Not at all, I can come up with a few names. People at The Intercept, for instance, like Glenn Greenwald. Journalists at The Guardian, who are known for this kind of work (Panama Papers, etc). There are plenty of good, independent journalists in Europe, and probably still some left at the WP or NYT. I don't know all of them.

I also admire Greenwald. Here is what he had to say about Russian election hacking attempt:

I think Greenwald is right in both accounts and I don't see any inconsistency between the two arguments. Russia did meddle in the elections and some of the media are reporting sensationalist news. Tell me something new. That is as expected, but the evidence (as good evidence as one can hope for in this case) is clear.

Quote

That's all. I'm not a Kremlin puppet

Since I don't know you, I assume that you might very well be. But if you are, your obvious primary mission is to get to the truth behind the rapidly vanishing Arctic sea ice and you are doing and excellent job. As such, you are the kind of Russian super secret agent that I like, even if we disagree.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.